Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shadowcat514 t1_iuf4u3v wrote

Oh, they did die. Henry II of France famously died due to an eye and brain injury sustained during a jousting bout. Wood splinter got in his eye.

>And if it was actually dangerous, why did they participate?

The recognition they would get was often worth the risk to them. The sport was dangerous, and people did die, but it was a relatively uncommon occurrence and they felt it would show their bravery and honor to everyone else.

322

CliffExcellent123 t1_iuf7ohr wrote

It's not like people don't take part in potential lethal sports now either. Plenty still do

186

futtbuckicecreamery t1_iuhkeb1 wrote

See: the Isle of Man TT

>Since 1937, the only year in which races were held but no fatalities occurred was 1982.

There were 6 this year.

59

DarthMondayMorning t1_iuhzv9s wrote

I really can't imagine the kind of mindset those guys have to have. I mean like... that is actively seeking out death and getting a glimpse of it at every damn corner.

19

sprucay t1_iuibflt wrote

I just don't know how they ride bikes with their massive balls in the way

4

T0lly t1_iuj3j6k wrote

Some people want to live life to the fullest for what ever time that is. Others want to sit around and wait on death to find them.

−1

OSRSTheRicer t1_iuisdbu wrote

It amazes me they still let them run it.

200 mph down extremely long straights that are not maintained to a standard that most tracks are kept at.

One of the famous motorcycle medics was killed a few years ago too. It's shocking that the only way to have a reliable medic on the course involves them in either a high end 911 or a bike.

1

SnakeBeardTheGreat t1_iugvkke wrote

Football was a very deadly sport Who ever was carrying the ball got piled on. Broken bones and death were common, Things changed with protective gear and the forward pass.

20

shinginta t1_iugx70t wrote

It's still extremely dangerous, especially long-term. Brain injuries are pretty serious, and can be cumulative. Over the course of an entire career the trauma mounts up.

But you're not wrong; it definitely used to be more dangerous, especially outwardly.

36

amazingmikeyc t1_iuhgdls wrote

which kind of football? gaelic?

5

thisisa_fake_account t1_iuhvcbb wrote

American one. The one played with hands. The real football has been relatively safer for a long time.

0

amazingmikeyc t1_iui2ts9 wrote

I think most footballs use hands, soccer is the outlier, I think I should point this out more to troll everyone

6

valeyard89 t1_iuhwl6b wrote

as'soc'iation football

2

amazingmikeyc t1_iui2p3e wrote

yeah i don't get why it's called Soccer not Sosha.

​

edit: ie association is pronounced asso-sia-tion or asso-shi-ation not assoc-iation so where does the hard C come from?

3

drafterman t1_iuj4sfb wrote

Because it's never been a rule that abbreviations have to inherit the pronunciation of their parent word. The Hard C probably comes from it sounding better.

3

Plane_Chance863 t1_iujxm2s wrote

Dunno, but at university the math society was abbreviated to math soc, with a hard c. So it was probably already a common abbreviation, and soccer came naturally later.

1

thisisa_fake_account t1_iui5bfr wrote

Because the Americans decided they would find an unnecessarily complicated name instead of going with the obvious one.

"What is this game"

"There's a ball, and you kick, dribble and shoot it with your feet"

"let's call it soccer"

"Why not football?"

"We already have football"

"Why is it called football"

"Because the ball is almost a foot long"

"Aren't balls supposed to be round?"

"..."

"..."

"SOCCER!"

"Soccer!"

−7

amazingmikeyc t1_iui8xry wrote

nah the term soccer originates in the uk, it's an abbreviation of Association Football, hence my comment. Before soccer became the only "football" there are/were lots of games called it, notably Rugby Football

6

Dubnbstm t1_iuiqkbi wrote

Garlic Football is also played using your hands, but, it is significantly safer than early 20th Century American Football or modern American football.

2

DobisPeeyar t1_iuijtdn wrote

Except that one African team where everyone died from the lightning strike

1

willtantan t1_iufellr wrote

Yea, like BASE jumping, why they do it, I can't comprehend. But plenty of them still chase it.

17

charlesfire t1_iugxr2h wrote

Boxing is worse imo. The whole point of boxing is to give a concussion to your opponent before he gives one to you.

31

russel0406 t1_iuh7p7q wrote

Ironically, concussions in boxing has gone up significantly since boxing gloves got introduced.

Back in the bareknuckle boxing days, people would hit way softer because a 100% force punch to a skull would break your hands if you boxed daily, which many back in the day did.

17

askewboka t1_iuhnjbq wrote

Actually, boxing gloves allow for numerous concussions to occur prior to an actual victory.

In boxing they also have a 3 knockdown rule which is hilarious. Boxing gloves have so much padding and the boxers are so strong that the padding absorbs the blow but still knocks your head back.

It’s like minor whip lash in a car accident but over and over and over.

MMA or BKFC is truly the sport of administering a concussion before someone else does

9

phantomeye t1_iugz4hv wrote

Still, in boxing there's a lot of avoiding the opponents punches.

Slapping sport in the other hand is almost like if you had to stay still in boxing taking the punches.

6

chris14020 t1_iuh6mvq wrote

The point of most sports where you can die is to avoid the dying part, not just boxing. Pretty much every sport has not doing the things that can cause dying as a pretty good strategy. The one you mentioned is actually an exception, where the thing is an integral and mandatory part of the sport. Even football, where you can get yourself rattled up pretty good by getting tackled, recommends you probably don't get tackled. It just so happens there's quite a bit of that.

4

BeneficialDog22 t1_iugw4uv wrote

It's the adrenaline rush, I bet. It feels like a drug. The recognition is probably nice too.

4

Captain-Griffen t1_iui0f4a wrote

Men doing stupid things that might get them killed seems a pretty universal part of the human condition.

5

agretsukko79 t1_iuh54x6 wrote

Formula 1 had three decades where someone would die every month on average. Heck, even worse than that.

3

breadcreature t1_iuhdkxh wrote

From what I've read there was also a lot of resistance to every advancement in safety measures, the danger was seen as part of the prestige and thrill. Some of the big (deadly) accidents thatve happened in F1 are fucking horrifying

2

RD__III t1_iui5zd1 wrote

Moreso, advancements in safety make the car slower. And the drivers would rather risk death than risk loss.

1

Fortune_Silver t1_iugq6vb wrote

This, people did die, but they also wore full plate, and used blunted wooden lances designed to (hopefully) shatter instead of pierce, and there were rules about where you had to aim, usually the breastplate etc so that your hitting the strongest part of the armor. You were trying to knock the guy off his horse, not kill him.

That said, you still have two men on horses charging at each other with large wooden sticks that you were aiming the best you could amidst all the horses movement jostling you around. Accidents happened. Sometimes people died. But at the time, the fame and prestige you stood to earn was seen as worth that risk, especially if you were only minor nobility or a commonor, if you could make a name for yourself it could transform your life.

42

Bigbadsheeple t1_iuh7uau wrote

Also jousting had its own armor piece, a big wide shoulder sheild that the other knight was supposed to hit. If they missed and hit the body or worse, the horse, they'd be basically shamed and laughed out if the tourney entirely.

If you hit the sheild not only were you precise, but you were far less likely to seriously injure or kill your opponent.

24

Mike2220 t1_iugqcfy wrote

>Accidents happened

"Accidents" as well

13

TonyR600 t1_iuh2xsl wrote

That were my thoughts. What stops me from putting my wooden stick to his head, killing him and claiming it was an accident

3

ShalmaneserIII t1_iuhounz wrote

> What stops me from putting my wooden stick to his head, killing him and claiming it was an accident

His equally well-armed and armored friends, probably.

These were a bit of a rowdy bunch. Think biker gangs getting riled up and you can imagine how your "oops" is going to get you killed anyhow.

15

Elcondivido t1_iuhdhuf wrote

I'm sure that something like that could have happened, but is pretty hard to hide the fact that you are pointing your very lon sticks way too high in front of an hundred of people.

Jousting stick are long, you can't really change the direction at the last moment to be sneaky.

8

mecha_face t1_iuh9up9 wrote

Depending on if you were a commoner or a noble? For a commoner, the fact that killing a noble for any reason was a death sentence. For a noble? Oh no, you damaged someone else's property, pay a fine.

1

vorpal8 t1_iuhhldq wrote

Commoners didn't get to participate in the first place.

10

Djackdau t1_iuhdwzq wrote

You didn't even need to unhorse the other guy (which would also be quite dangerous). Most of the time it was enough simply to properly break your lance upon their armor.

5

UncontrolableUrge t1_iuhueuw wrote

Modern jousting has a point system.

  • 1 point if you touch the shoulder piece of your opponent.
  • 3 points if you hit their shoulder piece with enough force to break your lance.
  • 5 points if you strike them with enough force to unhorse them.

This year at the Ohio Renaissance festival I did not see a single participant unhorsed, but these are friends. But there are no points if you hit them anywhere other than the shoulder piece designed to take a blow, even if you break a lance or unhorse them.

3

Quizzy_MacQface t1_iugvuqo wrote

Also, consider your chances of dying due to some plague or real military encounter or just "old age" starting at 40 instead of 70... It's not like jousting is gonna increase your chances to die that much (🤣)...

−7

rpsls t1_iuhaj10 wrote

Common misconception. The life expectancy was so low because lack of vaccines and antibiotics meant most people didn’t survive childhood. Once you were 30 you had a pretty good shot of hitting 60 even before modern medicine.

6

Quizzy_MacQface t1_iuhd2e0 wrote

Good point, but what I meant by "old age starting at 40" was more about an increased risk of cerebrovascular accidents, heart attacks, arthritis, gout, loosing your teeth... All those aches that nowadays start at 70.

Also I meant for it to be a funny silly comment, I don't really believe anyone is more willing to risk their life just because their average life expectancy is lower. My bad for not saying "/s" at the end of my comment I guess...

−1

Ender_Keys t1_iuhj5hl wrote

I mean alot of that stuff cardiovascular wise and losing your teeth didn't really become an issue until the 1500s. Gout was an issue for Nobles though

2

darrellbear t1_iug33rc wrote

Henry the Eighth was injured during a joust, some say his behavior and health changed afterwards, never the same.

11

Mattbl t1_iui7tc6 wrote

So this is unrelated but in Game of Thrones: House of the Dragon, the first episode features >!a jousting tourney and they showed it descend into everybody killing each other!<. Now I realize that was for dramatic effect, but even in GRRMs books he always breaks down jousts the way you just did. Participants compete for notoriety and rewards, not to kill each other, and there are rules and blunted lances. It really bothered me how the show just >!continued the Hollywood trope of medieval jousting being some sort of death sport where anything goes and riders can just randomly try to murder their opponent in hand-to-hand combat if they don't like them!<.

4

Tuga_Lissabon t1_iugutts wrote

Henry VIII seems to have been deeply affected by a jousting accident when he was young.

2

PSUAth t1_iuhyh3t wrote

He didn't watch the documentary "A Knights Tale" Where Count Adhemar states that most kights move their head to avoid debris.

2